Not PC

. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.

Friday, July 15, 2005

No Transmission

Sorry everyone, I've been offline and out of touch most of the morning with internet and other problems - Telecom tells me that apparently a 'shell' at their end is malfunctioning, so 120 ADSL users are down -- so I'm posting here from a net cafe on the way to an appointment.

And I'm off the 'Eye to Eye' show I mentioned below -- apparently back on at a later date for a different discussion. Instead if you do tune in you'll see Nevil Gibson, Rodney Hide, John Tamihere and John Mather, CEO of Maori Television, dissecting the channel.

Not in their name

Monday, June 11HUNDREDS of people paid tribute to the victims of the terrorist attacks in London with a candlelit vigil staged outside the British Embassy, [Bahrain], last night.

The joint vigil was organised by Al Wefaq National Islamic Society and the National Democratic Action Society and involved the Islamic Action Society, Bahrain Centre for Human Rights and the Bahrain Society for Freedom and Support of Democracy.

And there was also this news from The Scotsman, that "sixty Jordanians held a vigil outside the British Embassy in Jordan's capital, Amman, to protest at the London terror attacks and express solidarity with the British people." Photos here.

In the current environment, I found it inspiring to see some Muslims at least genuinely and enthusiastically denouncing the evil supposedly committed in their name...

It's by no means a Reformation of the religion, as I argued for here, (and Irshad Manji argues for so much better than I here) but it certainly put a smile on my dial.

Who would commit mass murder?

The terrorists that murdered Londoners were home-grown and foreign-trained to make them ideologically equipped for their 'ultimate sacrifice.' Where were they trained, who would encourage such thinking, and just what in the name of hell did they think they were sacrificing for?

The answer to the first question, reports The Times, is that Hasib Hussain and Shehzad Tanweer were trained in Pakistan.

Tanweer’s uncle, Bashir Ahmed, has no doubts that it was faceless figures in Pakistan who radicalised his sports-mad nephew.

“He was such a calm, loving normal boy. Extremists must have got their hands on him,” the 65-year-old Leeds businessman said yesterday.

“We all thought he had gone to continue his education. I thought he just wanted to improve his pronunciation.

“It wasn’t him. It must have been forces behind him.

'Training' was not stripping down Kalashnikovs out in a desert training camp.

“Today the camps are more like youth hostels,” one young activist who attended a madrassa in southern Pakistan told The Times.

“Recruits don’t spend hours scrabbling about on outward bound courses. It is more like being in a school room.”

“Organisers don’t want to turn out warriors who can strip down a Kalashnikov rifle blindfolded. They want to shape the mind, not the body.

“They want their recruits to embrace the idea of giving their lives for their cause, and doing nothing more technical than triggering the bomb they carry.”

There are long periods of Koranic study but also what organisers call “the evolution of the jihad”, which teaches how wars are no longer a battle between rival armies.

The modern Islamic terrorist understands the concept of 'asymmetric warfare' (I'll say more on this shortly) and he understands the true nature of sacrifice -- or at least he does after he's been indoctrinated in a philosophy of hate. "They want to shape the mind, not the body" -- remember that phrase, because whatever else this struggle is, at root it is a battle of ideas we are engaged in.

So who encouraged these lads to blow themselves up in pursuit of mass-murder? What sort of person were they, and what sort of a philosophy were they peddling. The Times has an example here: Egyptian-born Professor Tariq Ramadan, described as "an Islamic academic who justifies suicide bombings," and booked to speak in the UK soon.

As one of the good guys,Irfan Khawaja says, "draw your own conclusions about the nature of the moral and intellectual status of what passes for the Muslim intelligentsia, and the academic culture hospitable to it." Irfan has a go at the western apologists for the terror in a piece called Grievance Explanations and the Politics of Fantasy. It's good reading, and he poses a challenge to the apologists:

So which policy do you want? The one that led to London, the one that led to 9/11, the one that would have led to a nuclearized Iraq, or the one that might well have led to the Iraqi hijacking of the Saudi oil fields?

Or is it that you want the policy option that consists in the fantasy that you don't have to think about stuff like this?

moral inversion [in the West] fueled by toxic philosophy. Thanks to a long gray line of ideological dope-pushers, Western intellectuals, politicians and cultural leaders are addicted to the self-destructive hallucinations of moral relativism, altruistic self-sacrifice, cultural self-loathing and political appeasement of sworn enemies. Self-blame, along with cowardly calls for more 'understanding' and 'restraint,' are their only knee-jerk responses in the face of each new outrage.

And as for the argument that these are just extremist Islamic nutcases committing these horrors, like Bidinotto we've all been waiting to hear real, genuine repudiation from Muslims themselves. As he says,

I am by no means an expert on Islam. But since 9/11, and during the countless terrorist incidents that followed, I have been patiently awaiting evidence that the majority of Muslims worldwide repudiate the premises and tactics of Islamic terrorists.

Well, I'm still waiting. And there comes a time when one must finally draw conclusions, however painful, from the facts presented.

If there really is some sort of ongoing war between "extremists" and "moderates" for the soul of Islam, it appears to be one of the quietest contests in the history of ideological warfare.

More misunderstood killers

So who wants to defend this atrocity -- was the suicide bomber and those who encouraged and resourced him just 'misunderstood'?

BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber killed 27 and wounded 67 people, mostly children, when he blew himself up beside a US patrol in east Baghdad ... Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, has made clear in internet statements - though their authenticity cannot be verified -- that he sees Shia Iraqis as apostates who deserve to be killed just as much as American soldiers.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Guns and Fun!

The Herald have the news that there's to be some sort of event in Northland this weekend celebrating 'guns and fun,' at which there's reportedly a pretty unattractive-looking bloke talking "about issues affecting Northlanders, including 'the horror that is the RMA'." Outrageous. (And a truly awful photograph.)

They aren't terrorists, they're just misunderstood.

on Thursday night, as the weblog Harry’s Place has observed, the BBC website ran an article headlined “Bus man may have seen terrorist”. By the next morning the headline appeared as “Passenger believes he saw bomber”. Another page on the site referred to “the worst terrorist atrocity Britain has seen”. By Friday lunchtime these words became “the worst peacetime bomb attacks Britain has seen”.

And this wasn’t an accident. Editors were following Section 11 of the BBC’s editorial guidelines which read: “The word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term.”

The Telegraph reports that an un-named BBC spokesman said in response to these airbrushing accusations last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC." Bollocks, says the rest of us.

Won nothing

What is a combined smokescreen generator, mud thrower and bullshit dispenser? If you answered either Alastair Campbell or the benighted fool Clive Woodwhinge you get a point. Andrew has posted a hilarious Woodwhinger and a bunch of Lions jokes over at SOLO. Sure, even their wives must laugh at them when they're trying to score.************************************************************

The Lions are making available a help-line for fans who are disappointed with their team's recent performance.

Bloggers. Tragically hip.

So what's the collective noun for a group of bloggers?

How about a blowhard of blogs? EXAMPLE: Stephen can't come out tonight -- he's got a whole blowhard of blogs to get through.

Or a contumescence of blogs:EXAMPLE: There's a whole contumesence of blogs about that, and they all agree: you should wear the tinfoil inside your hat.Or maybe a who-gives-a-fuck of blogs:EXAMPLE: There is an entire who-gives-a-fuck of blogs that could answer your question, but I'm off to get laid. Have a nice life. Blowhard.

This guy reckons it should be a tragedy of blogs. He makes a good case ... for a blowhard with a Che icon on his site. He's also got lots of shitty words about the shitty words tragic bloggers use. For example:

Podcast: Someone had the revolutionary idea of taking a compressed audio file and putting it online. Yeah, doesn't sound so sexy when I describe it for what it is, does it you morons? It would have been a great idea if streaming audio wasn't already around for over a decade before the word "podcast" entered the lexicon. Man, I can't stand the word "lexicon." Talking about all these shitty words has made me start using shitty words. I'm so pissed, I just slammed the door shut on some kid's nuts.

And he's made up at least one new one of his own. "A female blogger with an itch? You guessed it: a BITCH." Not sure if I've ever met one like that. :-)

Transmission

Sorry everyone, illness in the family so expect transmission to be intermittent over the next while. Will catch up on posts and comments shortly. Apologies to anyone who has abused me while I've been away and was expecting a colourful reply, or who offered me something informative that it seems like I've spurned. I'll see what I can do as soon as I can. :-)

When sensitive flowers attack

I haven't yet read Lyndon's piece, but apparently reading my blog raises his blood pressure. Poor chap. Maybe he should lie down and think about England.

[UPDATE: Ah. Seems I've been given a bit of a bum steer. Here's what Lyndon wrote: "Be aware that I'm about to do a lot of attributing the opinions of one author to the entire blog. I'm sort of sorry about that. I know I abused PC for it. But I don't want to look up who said what because reading that blog is bad for my blood pressure." Looks like the Humphreys have misattributed 'that blog.' There you go. Storm in a pantywaist.]

Monday, July 11, 2005

When bloggers have got reasons to hide

I'm still in two minds about anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers. Some are posting under cover because they've got something to hide -- Jim Peron for instance, seemingly posting as LiNZ (unintentional irony, surely) -- and some do so because of things like this: an American University professor who suggests that if you're a blogger then university search committees may hold that fact against you when considering whether or not to offer you employment. True story. [Hat tip, Noodle Food.]

Where is the Gandhi of Islam?

Thoughtful pieces this morning from The Sunday Times, The Telegraph and Capitalism Magazine.The Telegraph has Charles Moore asking Where is the Gandhi of Islam? and is in a similar vein to my own Condemning a Culture, though with some important differences. I'd recommend an Aquinas, not a Gandhi.

... London is part of a great civilisation.Yet there seems to me to be a radical disjunction between our heroic capacity to deal with the immediate effects of terrorism and our collective refusal to confront what lies behind it. The effects of this disjunction are, literally, fatal. [Hat tip Samizdata]

And The Sunday Times has information on a Leaked No. 10 Dossier' showing the urgency of not letting our guard down in the meantime.

Al-Qaeda is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks in this country, leaked Whitehall documents reveal. A network of “extremist recruiters” is circulating on campuses targeting people with “technical and professional qualifications”, particularly engineering and IT degrees.Yesterday it emerged that last week’s London bombings were a sophisticated attack with all the devices detonating on the Underground within 50 seconds of each other. The police believe those behind the outrage may be home-grown British terrorists with no criminal backgrounds and possessing technical expertise.

And Michael Hurd suggests a crucial lesson to be learned from the latest terror attacks is that "terrorists are not afraid."

President Bush keeps repeating that we're not going to ever give in. No matter what they do to us, we'll stay firm. Firm in what way? In Iraq? Terrorism isn't merely about Iraq. Terrorism happens because some people want to destroy life on earth while others want to live it. Notice how terrorists don't usually go after soldiers (although they do this). Their primary targets are working people, people on buses and people on subways. Or people in airplanes. They want to terrorize "regular people" so that regular people will, in turn, compel their leaders to cave in.

Therein lies the terrorist contradiction. If we give in to terrorism more and more, then what do we get in return? In the end, a society run by religious fanatics who choke any tiny ounce of joy out of living. Why would any remotely rational person ever give in to this? This is why sooner or later (and usually sooner, rather than later), people get back onto the airplanes, buses and highways. They always have and they always will because civilization, on its worst day, beats a typical day in the life of a terrorist (or a terrorist state, such as Iran) hands down.

Magic Wood

Some of this week's best at Not PC

The last few days of posts here at Not PC have been mainly taken up with commentary on the London atrocities, and I should point out that Scoop and SOLO both have my column 'We are all Londoners today,' compiled largely from Friday morning's postings. Feel free to comment either here or at SOLO.

So here's the best of the week, plus art, comedy and music at the all-singing all-dancing Not PC:

Other posts:July 4th: Celebrating revolutionOn July 4th, Mark Steyn reminds us that criticisms of the US for being 'unilateralist' are ever so slightly amusing when you realise that a position of 'unilateralism' is simply a euphemism for one of 'independence,' the concept for which the July 4 celebration is putatively held. Why not abolish the holiday altogether, wonders Tibor Machan. A nation born in liberty now subjects itself to the very tyrannies and usurpations against which it once revolted...http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/07/july-4th-celebrating-revolution.htmlProperty-siezing the beginning of Sovietisation? Further commentary here from economist Richard Salsman on the Kelo et al v City of New London decision evicting people from their Connecticut homes to make way for a shopping mall...http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/07/property-siezing-beginning-of.html

A Saturday morning ramble: How do you judge success?I was chatting with a friend over breakfast when Hello Sailor's 'Gutter Black' came on the radio. (Seems it's being used for a new local TV series, so there'll be a few well-deserved royalties going Dave McArtney's way.) My friend commented that he'd never heard the song before, which seemed incredible to me; that song, I said, was what turned me on to music...http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/07/saturday-morning-ramble-how-do-you.html

Lifting your spiritsOn such a day as this, what can you do to lift your spirits without forgetting the atrocities of last night?I recommend music, especially music that represents the best of the culture that is presently under attack. Listening to the best of the west is almost like an act of defiance, a reminder that this is what we're defending against the nihilists....http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/07/lifting-your-spirits.html

Who is looking where?So who exactly is the blogger 'Looking in NZ'? Well, here's a clue: My post two below this one on Peron's problems is almost exactly the same as the comment I posted on the comments board of 'Looking in NZ's apologia for Jim Peron, which just been removed. Is that a clue?http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/07/who-is-looking-where.html

Peron's problems are of his own makingSome bloggers have been feeling sympathy for the difficulties in which Jim Peron now finds himself. I'm not one of them.'Looking in NZ' has said a lot about Peron’s problems, about which he seems to know an unusual amount, but hasn't once mentioned the elephant in the middle of the room that’s the direct cause of those problems...http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/07/perons-problems-are-of-his-own-making.html

Architect goes into liquidationAaron gave me the news that Auckland architect Richard Priest Architects Ltd have gone into liquidation. I don't know the sad details, but I'm not surprised since Richard was architect for one of the 'poster boy' projects of leaky homes...http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/07/architect-goes-into-liquidation.html

Stoning Ashraf ChoudharyThe idiotic pronouncement by Labour MP Ashraf Choudhary that stoning gays and adulters is okay because it is in the Koran and "what the Koran says is correct" demonstrates once again that all cultures are not equal, and Islamic culture perhaps least equal than most...http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/07/stoning-ashraf-choudhary.html

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Condemning a culture

Berlin Bear and Mark have been disagreeing as to whether any Muslims have condemned the atrocities in London, and I have to note in response to both of them that the BBC World Service did speak to plenty of British Muslims who did so in no uncertain terms. I have no doubt at all that they were genuine condemnations, and good on them for doing so.

There are secular Muslims about who do condemn bombing innocent people, for sure, but I'd suggest however that just as there are few Muslims who actively campaign against clitorectomies or the compulsory wearing of veils, there are few who are active in seeking to remove the stain of violent jihad from their culture, and many -- including western intellectuals and commentators -- that apologise for it. (Irfan Khawaja points the finger at Tariq Ali, for example, over here. Sir Humphrey's posts Christopher Hitchens's response to Ron Reagan Jr over here.) And one of the imams who condemned violence yesterday on the BBC represented the mosque in which was recruited the British-born Muslim that tried two years ago to blow up a US passenger airline with explosives in his shoe. This is not condemnation so much as tacit acceptance of the evil in one's midst.

So, to answer another of Simon's questions, I don't by any means condemn 1.4 billion Muslims -- I don't even know most of them for goodness' sake. As Simon says (insert obvious punchlines here) , "much as I despise the bastards who did this, I despair when I hear comments that imply that the whole of Islam is responsible for this sort of thing." Clearly 'the whole of Islam' did not bomb London, or Madrid, or Istanbul, or Jakarta, or Bali, or New York. But there is a world-wide trend there, don't you think, that we should not ignore. One that needs to be taken seriously, and one that needs to be condemned.

In my opinion it is the culture of Islam fundamentalism that needs to be condemned, as I argued here briefly just the other day before all this happened, and here some weeks ago. And in answer to criticisms that this attitude is racist, or that cultures themselves are beyond criticism, nonsense. Culture and race are two different things. One can condemn a culture without necessarily condemning those within it :

The fact is that cultures are not beyond criticism (a point made last week by Wellington probation officer Josie Bullock), and nor should they be. We should judge Islamic culture, and indeed all cultures, according to how well they work for those within them. Thomas Sowell made exactly that point in his book Conquest and Cultures:

Cultures are not museum-pieces. They are the working machinery of everyday life. Unlike objects of aesthetic contemplation, working machinery is judged by how well it works, compared to the alternatives.

Islamic culture does not work for those dirt poor people scraping a living across the globe in Muslim theocracies, and it sure as hell ain't working for those killed by Islamic bombs in the cities across the world to which many of those dirt poor have themselves escaped in search of a better life. A culture that encourages murder and martyrdom and theocratic dictatorship is not a culture that reveres human life. It must be condemned and it must be defended against.As long as the Islamic world harbours within it those have declared and carried out jihadic murder in the west, then the war of self-defence must be entered, both on the ground and in the battlefield of ideas.

It's not enough to just condemn it, however. Islam must be reformed, and the hate-success, clitorectomies-for-everybody, kill-the-west culture that has fomented nothing but hatred and poverty across the Muslim world firmly rejected. Witness the effect that the sisters of Robert McCartney (pictured left) had in speaking out against Irish violence -- in saying "NO MORE!" they brought the hope of an end to what once seemed unending. Only such a rejection from within is ever going to change the culture of Islam.

Second, Islam needs a Reformation. Urgently. As I pointed out here and here four years ago to noisy dissent, unlike the West, Islam never had a Reformation, and 1.4 billion Muslims and at least 750 Londoners are the poorer for that today. Islam never had a Renaissance. It never had an Aquinas to liberate science, thought and life from its religious shackles. Crikey, Islam doesn't even have a New Testament saying that all the God-awful and God-ordained killing in that earlier collection of papyrus is no longer necessary. Islamic culture needs to embrace Enlightenment values, and it needs to do so damn quickly.

It needs its own McCartney sisters and its own Aquinas. Until it gets them the culture stands condemned, with smoking ruins and a trail of corpses across the west as sad monuments to its destructive power.

Tip Jar

In America, they tip. In NZ, we shout beer. If you like the service here at Not PC, drop a tip in the tip jar and you can do both.

Recent
Comments

No Transmission
great post
Wanderer
Hm, the wanderer looked rather perilous standing on that spot...not sure about this one. :-)
Not in their name
Been (busy) talking to a mate in London about this exact scenario - we don't see it here, but apparently the UK press is full of responses from the Muslim community, condemning the bombings.

The largest relevant body is called the Muslim Council ofBritain and they've been vicious in their criticism of what these losersdid. Muslim News, the largest Islamic newpaper, came out 100% againstit. So too have lots of Mosque chairmen, in London, Luton and WestYorkshire...

Smile on the dial indeed. Change as is required must come from within, eh?
:-)
Good news indeed. Thanks for sharing that PC. That one had slipped under my radar. This time around, we have indeed seen a much more robust response from the Muslim community, and that is a good thing. I really hope it might be the first sign of a sea-change, but only time will tell.

The Muslim Council of GB that tcm has referred to above is the same body whose website I quoted from the other day on here. I'm pleased to see that the message is getting out.
Actions, however, speak louder than words.
Err, newsflash (several hundred years late): "The Reformation" involved lots of violence.
Thanks for your comments, guys. As Hippolyte say, actions will speak louder than words.

Anonymous, you noted for those who hadn't realised: "The Reformation [I've removed your inverted commas] involved lots of violence."

Are you suggesting the present violence is ~because~ there is an Islamic Reformation going on?

Or that the process of secularisation necessarily involves violence?

Or that the standard of living and freedoms of the West could have been achieved without the secularisation of the Reformation?

Or perhaps that a Reformation is unnecessary because life in Islamic theocracies is so shit anyway and secularisation wouldn't help?

Or are you just, as I suspect, a troll.
"Anonymous" may actually have a point - if that's what he's trying to say. Any attempt at a reformation of Islam will be met with extreme violence by the "old school".

Consider the killings of Shia Muslims in Iraq that you posted about here.
PC - I saw this today as well. It put a smile on my face too, but the accompanying article also noted that it was only about a hundred or so. It is good to see this kind of response, but I seriously doubt that there's any hope for a "seachange".
More good news today about unequivocal condemnation fo the bombings and bombers from the Muslim community in Britain:"Meanwhile Britain's top Muslims have branded the London suicide bombings "utterly criminal, totally reprehensible, and absolutely un-Islamic".

A joint statement of condemnation came as 22 leaders and scholars met at the Islamic Cultural Centre, in London.

Muslim leaders said there could never be any excuse for taking an innocent life, it said.

The statement said everyone must confront the problems of Islamophobia, racism, unemployment, economic depravation and social exclusion.

Of the Muslim stance on suicide bombing, the leaders said: "There can never be any excuse for taking an innocent life.

"The Koran clearly declares that killing an innocent person was tantamount to killing all mankind and likewise saving a single life was as if one had saved the life of all mankind.

Those who carried out the bombing, the statement said, "should in no sense be regarded as martyrs"."

Source: BBC News.
"The Koran clearly declares that killing an innocent person was tantamount to killing all mankind and likewise saving a single life was as if one had saved the life of all mankind."

And the Talmud, long before the Qur'an, clearly stated that "Who saves one life, saves the world entire".
"Innocent life" is a smokescreen - by Islamic law, very few of the people the Islamofascists have been killing are innocent. See my letter to the NZ Herald for details (sadly but unsurprisingly, they didn't publish it).
Maori TV
That is really good news PC. But, please tell me (us), what is ‘Eye to Eye’? Is it on telly? If so, what time and date. I’m sure if it was radio it would be ‘Ear to Ear’ – so probably is telly.

Is it any wonder Libz do not have a high profile? You have the opportunity to inject some libertarian ideas (intelligence) into one of the NZ media outlets and all you do is write a few lines on a medium which (as yet) does not have a million readers per day. Please buck up PC; this country NEEDS you! It needs libertarian ideas, and it needs to know where and when ‘Eye to Eye’ is broadcasting.

PS: Now there’s a target – one million readers per day. Are you up to it?
Yep, 'Eye to Eye' is on telly. TV One Sat 9:30 am, and repeated Tuesday evening late-ish. Fronted by Willie Jackson.

I suspect it's my few lines a day that helped secure this opportunity, amongst others. :-)

"Now there’s a target – one million readers per day. Are you up to it?"

I'm up for it. What's your plan? :-)
Oh, and do be assured I do have many reasoned lines of argument I do plan to inject into the debate. ;^)
The issue of Maori broadcasting is an important one. At the moment, the MaoriTV channel is absurd, irrelivent, biassed and unwatchable. I've seriously attempted to watch the channel on several occasions, my girlfriend (who is Maori) tells me to turn it off, or onto something more socially relevant, like Shorty for example.

No commercial advertiser will touch MaoriTV (just watch it for 30min and see for yourself), which exposes just how unpleasant MaoriTV is. However, there are ad breaks which are loaded with govt sponsored stop smoking campaigns, working for families advertising and so on. I saw one fierce advert late last year with Dr Ranginui Walker reminding Maori just how important and special they are and how proud they should be of this fact.

No-one watches the channel (except the scientifically curious). The best thing that could happen to Maori Television would be the immediate sale of the station, allowing commercially viable shows to be added, encouraging Maori to tune in.

Put simply, Maori TV is an insult to Maori and their intelligence. Its so heavily and obviously laced with propaganda that it makes your eyes water.

Still, lets give Maori Tv a chance by letting it stand on its own two feet. Sell it or give it away, Thats my opinion.
I have you believe in the year 2008 that Maori TV is still going and it now has a second channel which is 100% Maori. Maori TV was set up by law to protect the maori language and there is a growing need to futher adequately provide for the growing nation of toddlers who are now speaking Maori.I don't think your wife could call herself Maori all rather she would fit in to the TVNZ programming charter which TVNZ CEO Rick Ellis says that yr so called shorty st and Police Ten-7 caters to Maori for learning Maori. Get REAL!
kia ora... you p.c should have been at the indigenous language conference! little do you know how well maori tv are doing!we are experiencing new change... were bringing maori back! yeah.. we have been trying for 100s of years to get our voices out there... so dont try those ones ah..your wife... yes well,may need to go back to her roots!
maori like seeing maori... we put up with coronation st and nz idol... this is life. this lands first language is maori... what do you expect!!! and who needs ads... maori are on to it!!! we hate ads...
robin thomsenhonest to who your girlfriend is Maori and told you to turn off Maori television or change the channel. Obviously she isnt true to her culture and its customs.Maori television is for all ages all people and its in two languages. it is New Zealands channel!
Who would commit mass murder?
Not only are you "un-pc" you're a bit dim. Ramadan quite openly said such acts are to be rejected, even on television, whatever _The Times_ has to say.

As the old saying goes, "it takes two to tango". We need "moderate Westerners" as much as we need "moderate Muslims".
I love these anonymous posters with a skewed view of reality.
There is a point there, somewhere. I think that you can't just take whatever the 'mainstream' media told you. You need to also take account of other media, even Aljazerah (spelling?).
More misunderstood killers
Ask someone on the left - that's their speciality...
Well some fool made a half-arse attempt over at NZPundit and received a prompt (and I though very restrained under the circumstances) bitch slap.
I saw that one on the news last night. You're right, that is truly sick, utterly contemptible and psychotic. You'll hear no defence for him from me.

But have you actually had commenters around here *defending* the London bombers either? I haven't read all the comments on every post, but I haven't seen it on here yet. (Or are you talking about people on other forums defending the London bombers?)
On a post-bombing TV doco this evening, I saw a disturbing array of young British Muslim men all justifying the London massacres (of unarmed and innocent civilians, including Muslims) because of Western involvement in various Muslim countries. They may as well have been reading straight from some of the Al Qaeda media statements floating around the Internet.

Its disturbing that:1) They'd think that, and2) They think they can say it openly on Brit TV and get away with it.
AL,I agree with you that it's very disturbing that they'd think that. But on 2), isn't the very fact that they *have the freedom* to say such things openly one of things that sets Western society apart, and one of the things we want to protect at all costs? The key, to me, is not to prevent them from saying things like that, but to get the logical and rational contradictions to what they say out there, louder and more often.

(God, I'm starting to sound like a Libertarian! Must have been hanging round here too much) :-)
That 'documentary' was nothing of the sort. It was a propaganda exercise - plugging the 'Bush and Blair are to blame' line they hold so dear. While they deny supporting the terrorists - they certainly ain't on our side...
BB: My point is not that they fear censorship from an authority like the Government (but that is the direction things will inevitably move), but that they apparently don't fear any social repurcussions from saying such things.
AL,Ah, I see. Well then in that case, we agree. It's the missing social and intellectual repercussions, especially from their fellow Muslims that needs to be worked on, rather than cracking down on free speech. Right?
Guns and Fun!
They aren't terrorists, they're just misunderstood.
I don't know what's worse: The BBC semantically cleansing its own news coverage, or the bald-faced *terminological inexactitude" (to paraphrase Winston Churchill) when caught out. Yes, there's a ban on the T-word at the Ministry of Truth - so why not at least try to honestly defend the indefensible?
I think that in itself is bollocks. The word 'terrorist' doesn't really mean anything accurate - whereas 'bomber' does. Why can't we call a spade a spade, rather than having to us the over-emotive terminology of the Bush administration - in itself a form of political correctness.
Anonymous -

I've no interest in playing semantic ping pong with you, but IMO "terrorism" and "terrorist" was a perfectly accurate description of the London bombings and its perpretrators.

Anyway, the BBC can describe these people as "misunderstood freedom fighters" if it likes. But please don't insult my intelligence by banning words, retrospectively editing it from you websites, then deny anything of the kind has happened.

I notice the BBC doesn't have a ban on words like "lies" and "liar", yet. So I can say: "Could the BBC stop lying about its editorial policies?"
Someone who uses terror to advance their goals is a terrorist. Let's not play games with words it is unbecoming.
Won nothing
Bloggers. Tragically hip.
The Great Maddox. All his rants are worth a good read.
Will Labour's tax greed destroy it?
The best Free-Rad cover *ever*
Top 5 for sure. It is cracker of a cover shot.
I like most of the covers, but this is my favorite.

Plus, its me behind the Clark mask :-)
Transmission
Sorry to hear it - hope the afflicted party recovers quickly.
When sensitive flowers attack
Yup, he's also edited the post. (Lords, no - not editing of his post hours after the fact?) Heh. Watching somebody jerk around on the floor with a furious gnashing of teeth and foam at the corners of the mouth is always funny. Peter Cresswell? Bad for your blood pressure? Only if you actually think about the scenarios he describes where the Statist government is Not your best friend. Oh well, I have the original page via feed if you're interested. Haven't checked (couldn't be bothered) to see what the differences are.
The link at Sir H's broke when I corrected a stupid typo in the title (this is the only 'edit'; tcm, you can check if you like).

If you have a careful look I hope you'll agree that the 'blood pressure' comment was intended to refer to Sir H's and not to PC.

Because (whatever the Lemur says about me backing my opinions), that's they way I meant it.

Ta.
Well he has certainly achieved his goal in provoking a response - this fighting talk person. Man you men are dumb. Everyone a coconut.
Ya think he's dumb, Ruth, I think I can top that, and I think you know who I mean. Some people just don't know when to quit.
I don't want to engage you Lyndon, because I can hear a clock with a little bird in it ticking and it's going to chime 5:30 soon. But, splitting hairs is a real fine art when you link to posts like this while talking about Sir Humphreys.
Blah blah blah... getting savaged by Lyndon is akin to having your ankle humped by a not very bright guinea pig. However did you notice?
Yes indeed Craig...but who will support Mark- not hot PC that's 4 sure. But *I* will. It disgusts me when people put up posts and then run away. I know who *my* friends are and I support them whole-heartedly, not because I require it - I can stand up for myself- but because an alpha-male would.

Guess you men aren't high enough up the food chain.
I meant an alpha male or woman there. Heh.
And you are cowardly too Peter Cresswell - clicking through from elsewhere. I've got your number and am done with you. Guess you aren't an alpha male after all. FETE.
"And you are cowardly too Peter Cresswell - clicking through from elsewhere. "

Que?
you're right, did read that sentence wrong. Oh well, the rest still stands... unless hes edited it of course.
Theres been rather alot of editing of that post, including the PC comment. No one cared enough to keep a copy, so into the ether the original goes.
I've missed something too, PC. Ruth, I don't see anything 'alpha male' in wasting a picosecond of my time on Lyndon Hood - he is nothing and nobody to me therefore his opinions are nothing more than the atonal "music" of the blogospheres.
lemur: oh no there hasn't. see above.
I've just deleted James's recent comment. He can come back and add comments when he at least pretends to value reason.

And I have to agree with Lydon here: I linked to his piece when the link was posted, but only read it some hours later and I didn't notice it changed when I pressed the refresh button. On reflection it's really just politely humorous.

Oh, and does anyone know what FETE means?
"A festival or feast." according to my dictionary, but that makes little sense in context to me. Betting it's an acronymn, but have no clues, sorry.
Fucking Egregious Titty Eater?

Just guessing, although, after all the support, I sure in hell don't want to offend Ruth!!!
The Humps misattributing something? Now there's a surpruse...
FETE: For Ever The End if I were to guess.
When bloggers have got reasons to hide
Well, you already know how I feel about this. (Look down a few threads to the "Business as usual" post). I'm not much of a fan of anonymous commenters, as in my experience people who leave no name or calling card whatsoever tend not to be leaving constructive comments. But I (obviously, look at my user name) don't have a problem with pseudonyms. Everyone has their reasons for choosing whether or not to use their real name online. Let them choose, I say. As long as people consistently use one name, own to their comments and are in some way contactable (either by continuing the comments thread, or by leaving a blog address or an email address) I have no problem with it. After all the real name Peter Creswell says nothing more to me, in and of itself, than a pseudonym would.
I pity all those poor bastards that have to live in fear of not getting a job for pursuing freedom of speech. As far as anonymous blogging goes, I would no more take the opinion of an anonymous blogger than I would a news report written by a reporter for a media source who called himself "Peking Duck" or "Paris Pete". The idea is absurd. And for my pains in merely replying to BB's comment that he had no assurance that my name really was what I purported it to be I was deemed arrogant and conceited by BB's buddy, who also blogs anonymously. It's easy to make unfounded accusations about others when you can hide behind a cloak of anonymity, wouldn't you say? Oh well, I've certainly been called worse by better.
And now a completely irrelevant point by "Secret Samurai". Hey, Sammie, you missed your cue.
The most obvious reason, and my own, for using an online pseudonym is because of fear of problems with ones employer. In the case of Looking in NZ, I imagine trying to escape from history is his primary reason. (If he's who we think he is).
Mark,

Why do you continue to debate anonymous posters then? In newspaper articles columnists are expected to put their professional reputations on the line. Their job is about opinion, so they can't keep it out of their daily lives. My profession, academia, is more focused (contrary to what some pop-academic behaviour indicates). I certainly wouldn't want one of my students bothering me with something general they had read on my blog while I was conducting research in my own field, no more than a mechanic would want a customer doing the same while he or she were at work. Also, because I am involved in teaching people, somebody might take one of my opinions on a blog as an 'expert opinion,' when really I am commenting on something outside my realm of specialisation. Also, I don't particularly want blog readers from the rabid right hassling me at work. It's not that I don't discuss issues mentioned here outside the webesphere - most assuredly I do - but I want people to respect my boundaries. I expect Bear has his own, equally logical reasons.

One of the consistent complaints I see on the web is that a blogger is engaging in 'ad hominem' attacks. Well, if it's the debate that matters, then what's in a name? If you're happy to use your real name, good for you. However, based on your earlier comments I would suggest there are less lofty reasons for you refusal to hide behind a cloak of anonymity, namely you are a political aspirant. For you, unsolicited attention is a good thing. For me it is not.

'It's easy to make unfounded accusations about others when you can hide behind a cloak of anonymity, wouldn't you say?'- and as you prove by your posts, it's just as easy to make them when you are not anonymous.
Who are you talking about AL?
Good question. But if I say I'm done with you, I guess I'll be accused of turning tail again. But I am. Done with you, Sammie.
Yes, well I expected as much.
I don't think it is Jim Peron. Jim is a better writer than this individual and better at putting his point of view across. Although the views are similar, the style of writing is not the same, nor as eloquent.
I don't know enough about Jim Peron to know if the views expressed in LookingNZ are similiar or not. I go by writing style and the vibe I get from that style - and I agree with Blair, it's not Jim Peron.
Good grief no! Is that what was thought?

Of course that's not Jim. Jim can write and spell for a start and if nothing else convinces you think of how many times longer each item would have to be for it to be authored by our Balzacian exile. Blogging is not what Jim's do at any rate. No wonder I didn't pick up on this in the first place- it's too much wide of the wicket.

Do come along PC (who has never been *caught* using a pseudonym himself)!
ss - The 'Would I make this shit up' post on LiNZ sort of destroyed that theory. I don't know said person very well, but can't imagine he'd stoop to something that low.
Go back under your rock SS (ha!), you cowardly fucktard. Why the hate - why the hate for Mark and for Peron for that matter. A pox on your houses, all of you.
I have a cyberstalker now, PC! I think he likes me! LOL ;o)>
LiNZ is Peron.

When Peron abuses people out of public site this is exactly what he writes like. Most of your readers who have not experienced abuse at the hands of Peron would not be familiar with the style so it is understandable that they would be mistaken.

This blog is anonymous, he is out of site, its Peron all right.

LiNZ's blame everything on Christians approach is Peron's and the theological mistakes are unique, well not unique if you buy that LiNZ is not Peron...

At the very least LiNZ is the person caught posting under multiple id's on kiwiblog abusing the Locke Foundation.
If its peron then hes throwing in a few posts to put people off the scent.
Yet another ego driven comment, Mark. Your tactics are proving childish. Your ego can not stand when someone presents a valid argument. It's clearly pushing you to the edge as your are now resorting to responding to others in an effort to get one last jab in and still give the 'appearance' of having dismissed what you deem an unworthy debate. It would seem they only become unworthy when they oppose you. Nice. Oh, and before you lower yourself yet to more profanity in an attempt to dimiss me, I'm dismissing myself, so no worries there. Enjoy your day. :)
Antarctic Lemur said... If its peron then hes throwing in a few posts to put people off the scent.

Well wouldn't you do that if you wanted to pretend to be someone else?
All my comments are ego-driven. I'm a blogger! Light up and try to have some fun already, PMCS.

By the way, It's Paper Moon, Cardboard SEA, not sky. The sky is canvas:

http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/97757/Cole_Natalie/Paper_Moon/

Wanted to point that out to you the other day, but you were in a real pissy mood. Thought I'd give it a day or two to tell you that yer all fucked up.
Pssst, Mark, it's part of an inside joke you weren't privy to. I like the name as is in that it really lets people tell a story about themselves, at least those who feel the need to point it out. :)
Where is the Gandhi of Islam?
Two "Ghandis" of Islam could be Salman Rushdie and Irshad Manji. For their pains, fatwas have been issued and threats of death have become a commonplace reality in their world. Easy to see why not many are stepping up to assume the mantel of "Gahndi of Islam".
Magic Wood
Some of this week's best at Not PC
Condemning a culture
Islam did have some big reformers and famous scientists, but the Salafis always persecuted them for contradicting the Word of God, as revealed by the one true prophet Mohammed.
Also - the West has had several major wars which arguably have reduced the percentage of violent idiots prevalent in the population. Evolution, in other words, whether by genetic or social development means.
In your list of areas "not bombed by the whole of Islam" I find it curious that you neglected to mention Israel, which has, in terms of casualties to population, suffered a greater loss than New York on 9/11. As far as the whole of your post is concerned, you have succinctly summed up what I could not in a few short words allotted to the comments space. My main grievance with the likes of Berlin Bear is that they presume to know exactly what one stands for and refuse to read between the lines or seek out informmation on those they attack for what they perceive to be the antithesis of their "world view".

We all have a chance to speak out on others' blogs. I think the discourse would be more constructive if one's first reaction was to attempt to understand each other rather than condemn one another with a complete lack of knowledge of that person's political leanings, religious persuasion or open-mindedness. And we all speak in generalisations. Attacking one for "generalizing" is a cheap trick of debate that many use to portray their opponent as "biased" or "closed-minded".
Correction - I meant "suffered a greater loss than the US", not New York. Which actually points up the distress Israel has endured from terrorism even more.
PC -

But sadly, Irshad Manji was all too prescient when she wrote:

The London transit bombings happened on a Thursday. Islam's holiest day of the week is Friday. That's when the most important sermons -- known as khutbas -- are delivered in mosques everywhere.

And that's why Muslims everywhere face a test in the next several hours. Assuming we're serious that Islam means peace, we must demand that our Friday khutbas denounce the London terrorist explosions in unambiguous and unqualified terms.

Here's what I predict will happen instead. The preachers will express condolences for the victims and condemnations of the criminals. Then they'll add, "But Britain should have never invited this kind of response by joining America in the invasion of Iraq."

I'm hearing from too many Muslim acquaintance that despite what's being said in public, too many Muslim leaders are singing a more muted tune behind closed doors.

But, having said that, every Muslim voice raised against the Islamofascists and death cultists is a welcome one.
BTW, anyone who thinks it's time for an Islamic Reformation should take a look at http://www.muslim-refusenik.com

Irshad Manil - the author of 'The Trouble with Islam Today - agree with you, and I don't think she's going to give up her religion without a hell of a fight.

More power to her, I say.
"But, having said that, every Muslim voice raised against the Islamofascists and death cultists is a welcome one."

Absolutely right.

"BTW, anyone who thinks it's time for an Islamic Reformation should take a look at http://www.muslim-refusenik.com"

I will be. That looks interesting.

BTW, I should say just to make it absolutely clear that condemning a culture does not mean breaking the windows of mosques, scrawling graffiti across their walls and threatening or abusing innocent Muslims. Doing so is not dending civilisation, it is just being a thug. A cowardly one.
PC -

Your last point is absolutely correct. As I've said on NZPundit, that's playing the Islamofascist game according to their twisted, hateful and cowardly rules. It also wins the death cultists sympathy and 'victim' status, both within and outside Islam, they wouldn't otherwise have - and certainly don't deserve.

So what did the people who made these cowardly attacks on other's property achieve? I believe 'own goal' is the technical term, if they thought they were "defending civilization".

I hope these bastards are caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And then the Prime Minister goes to the Muslim community and has the guts to say, "This happened because you are citizens of an open, tolerant and pluralistic Western democracy. You have rights under the rule of law — not selective interpretation of a religious text. They aren't qualified by your religion, gender or sexual orientation. Think about that. Ask yourself if you're truly willing to extend the same courtesy to others. And if the answer is no, tell me why. Now."

It won't happen, but I can dream.
Good post PC. Cool headed, calm, well argued. I don't agree with everything you've said here, but I certainly agree with much of it. I don't share your apparent optimism regarding the progress that the McCartney sisters' stand has brought about, for one thing. I need to see much more evidence of change before I'll buy "hope of an end to what once seemed unending". I admire their stand, and I think it was important and has helped, but I'm not convinced it has (yet) brought about.

At one point above, you wrote: "In my opinion it is the culture of Islam fundamentalism that needs to be condemned". That, I think, is crucial. It's essential that people, including (or rather especially) non-fundamentalist Muslims, focus on condemning the culture of Islamic/Islamist fundamentalism, rather than Islam in general. That is the distinction that I felt was missing from your earlier post, and which Mark failed to make (though he may have meant to make) in his comments. I'm pleased to see the distinction made carefully here.

The spectre you raise of a Muslim Reformation is an interesting one. I'm not quite ure what to think of that. Certainly, that would not be something which could come from outside the Muslim Community, but would have to be from within. So, it seems to me, that one is a bit out of our hands. If it doesn happen, I hope it doesn't bring the same sorts of wars with it that the Protestant reformation did.

Anyway, nuff said. Interesting post.
Spectre? Interesting choice of words, but I strongly recommend you read Irshad Manil's 'The Trouble with Islam Today'. She argues that a liberal Islamic reformation isn't only necessary it's vital for Islam's spiritual and social survival. But she would disagree with you on one point: Those of us in the West have a responsibility to assert that values of pluralism and tolerance aren't only about 'rights' they're also about responsibilities. Some on the left have to stop being apologists for Islamic bigotry, harassment and intimidation they would roundly condemn coming out of the mouths of Christian fundamentalists like Brian Tamiki. (Having said that, some on the right also need to stop making over-broad - and frankly ignorant - generalisations about Muslims they would find grossly offensive if made about Christians or Jews. I've also been disgusted by some right-wing bloggers who've tacitly or explicitly condoned the vandalism of mosques in Auckland over the last few days.)

People like Manil have to lead and shape any movement to reform Islam. But we in the West can't just wash our hands of any responsibility for challenging Islamofascism. it's a cop out.
"BTW, I should say just to make it absolutely clear that condemning a culture does not mean breaking the windows of mosques, scrawling graffiti across their walls and threatening or abusing innocent Muslims. Doing so is not dending (sic) civilisation, it is just being a thug. A cowardly one."

I agree wholeheartedly. The use of the word "condemn" conjures up all sorts of nasty images, when it merely means (for me, in this case) to renounce precepts of Islam that allow the slaughter of innocents, the abuse of women, ad nauseum. Ms. Manji does not bend over backwards to make the distinction between Islam at large and "fundamentalist" Islam, nor do I. As she explains in her book, the Islamic religion has a pervasive attitude of looking the other way with regard to the worst aspects of the religion, (including the cult of death that arises from literal interpretation of the Qu'ran as the absolute word of Allah), and it is this attitude that must change across the board. If you haven't read her book, BB, do so before continuing to excoriate me for what you perceive to be a "wrong" point of view on my part. I would also suggest that you start reading the Qu'ran, as have I, in order to ascertain the truth about the basis for the so-called "religion of peace".

And, by the way, Mark D. Firestone really is my name, easily ascertained by a Google search especially since I own a construction business and ran for local public office last year in Sonoma County, California.
Craig,There was no particular implication behind my choice of the word spectre. Perhaps "prospect" would have been a better choice. I was not trying to making any sort of a point with that.

You make a fair point about the role to be played by non-Muslims in encouraging or pressing for an Islamic reformation. I accept that. I most certainly was not attempting to "wash our hands of any responsibility for challenging Islamofascism". Rather, I was trying to stress that, in order to be effective and Islamic reformation would have to be principally driven from within by Muslims who are fed up and want real change. It cannot effectively be imposed from without by non-Muslims. That was my point.

I share your dismay about aspects of both the left and the right in response to this issue. I would add to that my own dismay at elements of the right who seek to shut down debate on this issue by screaming "terrorist lover" etc. when people do not accept their, as you put it, overbroad generalisations about Muslims.
"I would add to that my own dismay at elements of the right who seek to shut down debate on this issue by screaming "terrorist lover" etc. when people do not accept their, as you put it, overbroad generalisations about Muslims."

In fact, there was no "screaming", and it was terrorist apologist, not lover. Two different things entirely.

Admittedly, my referring to Berlin Bear as a terrorist apologist was a below-the-belt shot, and I am not above admitting that it was out of line. I think it is important to note, however, that it came after BB's persistent, and completely wrong and unjustified characterizations of me and steadfast refusal to engage in a fair debate on a subject on which he is hardly the definitive source. As I said elsewhere, accusing your opponents of generalisations as proof of their bias is a cheap trick of debate.
Interesting that you assume I was talking about you Mark. There are other forums where this issue is being discussed you know. But as they say, if the cap fits, wear it.
Ya know, Berlin Bear, you could yake a minute, step back, and realize that we are essentially coming from the same place here. Our disagreement so far has, in it's basest avatar, centered only around whether one is talking about all of Islam or those Muslims who engage in, and do not condewmn terror. It has become a quarrel about semantics, and I am trying to put that aside by owning my transgressions and taking a conciliatory tone with regard to my previous remarks.On the other hand, you have shown yourself to be an arrogant prick with an undeserved and smug self-righteousness. Do they make a cap for that head?
Mark,One more point of clarification. You wrote: "I think it is important to note, however, that it [terrorist apologist comment] came after BB's persistent, and completely wrong and unjustified characterizations of me and steadfast refusal to engage in a fair debate on a subject on which he is hardly the definitive source."

If you go back and read the comments thread to which you are referring, you will find that 1) I explained very carefully what led me to make my assumptions about where you were coming from *and* added an apology if those were wrong asumptions; 2) I never at any stage claimed to be a definitive source on this subject; 3) my "steadfast refusal to engage in a fair debate" took the form of addressing in turn every single point that you raised, explaining my contrary point of view and explaining how I reached that point of view. In addition I expressed an assumption about what your reaction to my comment would be which, while presumptuous on my part, turned out to be exactly correct. With the exception of the last part (which I accept would have been much better left off) that, to me, is exactly how engaging in a fair debate looks. The *only* thing I refused to do is agree with you. I'm sorry that that bothers you, but I was not convinced by your arguments. That's how debate works: you have to convince the other side, and if you don't, you part without agreement.

And finally, you've raised this twice now: "As I said elsewhere, accusing your opponents of generalisations as proof of their bias is a cheap trick of debate."This is a red herring. While I don't accept your premise that pointing out generalisation as proof of bias is not an acceptable argument, it is completely irrelevant here. The reason it is irrelevant is that, unless I am very much mistaken, I at no point did that in the previous comments thread. In fact, I'm not sure I even used the words generalisation or the word bias at any stage.

(I see that while I've been writing this, you've made another comment, which I shall read and address shortly.)
Mark,I see you were busy while I was typing that last response. Goodness. I will not be addressing or returning your personal abuse. It does strike me that we must have a very different idea of what a conciliatory tone must sound like.This:"BB's persistent, and completely wrong and unjustified characterizations of me and steadfast refusal to engage in a fair debate on a subject on which he is hardly the definitive source"does not fit into my definition of conciliatory.

I shall now arrogantly, self-righteously and smugly go and see if I can find a cap to fit my head. Tata.
Ah, I've reread the comments thread in question in detail and I've found where you came up with the dismissing generalisation thing from Mark. (I've also found that I did use the word generalisations once, so I was wrong in my previous comment - beg pardon). But it was Simon, not me, who accused you of generalising, so my assertion that it is a red herring in your dispute with me stands.
Mark, this debate became about semantics when you chose to ignore the point-blank, irrefutible evidence that was presented to you by Berlin Bear. His retort was straight forward (as opposed to condescending) and gave you EXACTLY what you asked for and yet you demonstrated that your ego would not allow you to admit that in your passion to make a point, you engaged in generalizing of the kind that starts the bloody tiffs we now find ourselves in. It's not accurate, it's not careful and it's the same patriotic drivel that leads to the tragic loss of life we endure in this moment.

I am fully impressed with just how strongly your ego enters your points of contention. Who gives a flying fart in space what your full name is. My first name is PaperMoon, my last name is CardboardSky. Don't believe me? Look up. And before a person of your noteworthy esteem and presence as a pillar of strength in the community bothers to head over to my blog to see what 'makes me tick' - don't waste your time. You'll find nothing but introspective babble and blather aboard as I do not run political comment there. I'm what some politcal activists may call 'the common people' - you know, the less engaged that many politically involved people love to argue they are more in touch with, and ironically have absolutely no idea how far off they are. If you have it in you to set your ego aside, you may see the bigger picture Berlin Bear was trying to paint before you resorted to pathetic name calling. Try getting over yourself and your more meaningful points may reach more ears.
Papermoon, Cardboard Sky:

Thanks. Glad you set me straight on all that.

You can fuck right off as well.
You seem like thoughtful intelligent people. I'd like to invite you to read www.amren.com, and perhaps discuss what you think of their politcal leanings and understanding.
Dearest Mark, I do indeed hope to see you take a high profile spot in the political arena some day. At that juncture, my own ego would relish the opportunity to point out just how much of a farce it would be for you to ever represent anyone at any level. Enjoy the view from up there. It must be awfully lonely.
Papermoon - At this juncture it has become painfully obvious that no matter what I say I will be taken to task for it by Berlin Bear and his fellow brown nosing fans such as yourself. So I might as well get a few jabs in myself. As they say, those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter. Do have a nice life.
In Bear's summation of his debate with Mark in the other thread, he forgot to mention that when rational debate became too much for him, Mark tucked his tail between his legs and ran away crying. I sense it's getting to that point now.
Okay, anyone else want to take a cheap shot? FYI, "Secret Samurai", reaching a point where you realize that your opponent in a debate is interested only in attacking you for the sake of attacking you, and desiding it isn't worth pursuing can hardly be construed as "running away crying". This makes two supporters of Berlin Bear's that have had absolutely nothing of substance to add to the dialogue, and are merely standing on the sidelines cheering on a loser. Come back when you have a point to make.
MY point, which you seem to want to claim as your own, was that you have had nothing of substance to say since the Bear trounced you in a blow-by-blow review of the debate above. Perhaps I'm cheering him on, but that's because

1. I agree with him.

2. He seems to have rebutted all your points, as well as defending his own.

3. Based on previous experience I predict you'll just give up when you recognise a superior argument.

There's nothing particularly new in what I'm saying, I'll agree, but nor is there anyhting particularly original in your comments either.
My, what an interesting way of 'not pursuing'...